Talk:Shasu

Do we know anything else about the Shasu?

So far as I've heard, "Shasu" was a general term used by the Egyptians for the nomads of Sinai, Transjordan, and Palestine. Do we know what language they spoke? (Was it a Canaanite language, like the later peoples of those areas?) A connection with the Israelites (who spoke a Canaanite language) has been suggested; would that also suggest a connection with the Edomites, Moabites, Kenites, and Midianites, who were their cultural and linguistic relatives? In short, how much data do we actually have on the Shasu? --Rob117 05:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

THERE USED TO BE AN ENTRY IN EASTON'S BIBLE DICTIONARY +/- SMITH'S BIBLE DICTIONARY that linked the Shasu to Sheshai, the son of Anak, the son of Arba = Hebron = Hebrew and cognate with the SA.GAZ.

There have also been attempts to relate 'ly-'aneq' (mentioned in the Egyptian execration texts c.1800 bc) with the Anak of Canaan.--207.225.65.89 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Exodus of Shasu.

There was an uprising of an alleged 200,000 Shasu attackers and their allies along the border of Egypt and Sinai mentioned on inscriptions from Karnak. Seti I routed them into Canaan, along with his son Ramesses II c. 1300 to 1290 bc.

This group likely included Apiru and Shasu who worhsiped "Ywh" and later settled into Edom (Midian), and the Arabah, their original homeland. Later on some of these Shasu and Apiru settled into the Canaanite highlands and formed an ethnic identity of 'Israel' in the hills of Judah.

about 80 or 90 years after this massive war between the Shasu and Seti/Ramesses, we have Merenptah batteling the people of Israel in the higlands of Judah c. 1210.

The fact that Apiru and Shasu were slaves of War in Egypt's captivity c. 1500-1200 seems to suggest there is at least a historical plausibility behind the stories of "Hebrews" and nomads in bondage in Egypt. Indeed, if the Apiru(Habiru), included the hebrews of the bible, then we do have some nuggets of historical likeliness.--207.225.65.89 05:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above comment about Shasu

There was an uprising of an alleged 200,000 Shasu attckers and their allies along the border of Egypt and Sinai mentioned on inscriptions from Karnak. Seti I routed them into Canaan, along with his son Ramesses II c. 1300 to 1290 bc.

It was 20,000 not 200,000. Its supposed to be a group of Habiru and Shasu. Later, Egypt will use the term Shasu to anything that comes from the East. Just like Habiru, Shasu is more a generic term for the eastern groups.

This group likely included Apiru nd Shasu who worhsiped "Ywh" and later settled into Edom (Midian), and the Arabah, their original homeland. Later on some of these Shasu and Apiru settled into the Canaanite highlands and formed an ethnic identity of 'Israel' in the hills of Judah.

Midian is in Northwest Arabia, there are archeological proofs that Midian was only inhabited from 1300 to 1100 BCE. This corroborates the bible story (first when Moshe lived with Jethro and second when he led the Hebrews to Mt Sinai).

Moreover, Redford's idea about the origin of Biblical YHWH with a group called "Yhw in the land of Shasu" is pure speculation. The Shasu might well be the Biblical Sinaite Susim (speculation again !). Yhw could be a chief, an Egyptian toponym, or a further ethnonym. We don't know if the Shasu worshipped only one god (this is very unlikely for a nomadic tribe). There is no evidence of Shasu people settling in Judea before Merenptha.

--Squallgreg 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Rainey

To reiterate my edit summary, I removed the Rainey quote saying "I'm not sure why this was put here as it is covered earlier, and using better sources than BAR". It was inappropriately placed, and although BAR meets our criteria as a reliable source, any scholar of the ANE knows that there are much more reliable sources and that BAR isn't exactly without an agenda. The new edit using Rainey is much better as it is placed in the correct context and has a bit more detail. The edit summary saying "To reject a relevant source is a violation of NPOV. The Amarna letters are not mentioned elsewhere" misrepresents my reason for removing Rainey originally. And there can be good reasons to reject a relevant source that do not fall foul of our guidance on NPOV, but that isn't what's happened here anyway. dougweller (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Current edits

I'm working on this again but not at home where I have better access to sources. I may have been to hasty in using the reference I just did, as I see the author is a geologist and reading further I'm very dubious about her qualifications to make the claims she does. There are some sources from the early 70s, eg Lipinski, but I prefer to use later sources. EG this pdf [1], Thompson's Early history of the Israelite people [2]. amd Ancient Ammon [3]. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahlström

Found this snippet: The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic ... - Page 277 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hMVtAAAAMAAJ Gösta Werner Ahlström, ‎Gary Orin Rollefson, ‎Diana Vikander Edelman - 1993 - ‎Snippet view - ‎ Gösta Werner Ahlström, Gary Orin Rollefson, Diana Vikander Edelman ... "when several new settlements were built.6 Thus, these Shasu, together with everybody else who lived in the hills, later became what is known as Israelites." But we can't use snippets. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Shasu hieroglyphs

Has anyone checked those hieroglyphs for accuracy? Temerarius (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the lead be summaric or not?

@SpikeToronto: A few weeks ago, you added a {{who}} to the lead. Now, in my opinion, the lead should contain a brief summary of the main topics in the main text; whence in general it should not be as detailed as the article itself. Hence, I think, the summaric facts stated in the lead should not always be explained or verified in the lead, if there are adequate and easily found such explanations and verifications in the text proper. Your "who" question is a typical example; if you read the article, you quickly find your question amply answered.

If you agree, I think that the "who" template just could be removed. Regards, JoergenB (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoergenB: There are citations throughout the article introduction, in keeping with WP:LEDECITE. In fact, that line is just about the only unreferenced part of the lead. I found the statement controversial, and as such the policy regarding citations in the lead would suggest that at least one citation supporting the statement would be appropriate. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@SpikeToronto: Thanks for your explanation!

IMHO, the fact that other parts of the lead might be regarded as a bit 'over-sourced' is no real argument in this context. (This quite probably is due to the kind of good faith but perhaps slightly overzealous editing discussed in the last paragraph of WP:LEADCITE.) On the other hand, the fact that at least one editor of good standing found the statement controversial definitely is a real (and IMHO decisive) argument. However, this leaves us with a problem.

It would of course be possible just to add (copies of) the links to Redford and Rainey, respectively, and elsewise leave that lead sentence unchanged. However, I think that this would give undue weight to their respective arguments. In the article, as you can see, Redford's and Rainey's arguments and conclusions are presented (separately); but so are counterarguments by other scholars (and the other views in total are clearly given more weight in the present article, I should say). It also would be possible to expand that lead sentence to some 'on the one hand... but on the other...'; but this is a move in the direction I would like to avoid; to cram all article content into the lead.

One somewhat unorthodox solution might be to leave the short sentence as it is, and just add a "reference" to the relevant section; possibly in the form of a footnote. Now, in general, we also don't expand or replace the lead by a 'Content'; we rather rely on the automatic software content extraction of the section and subsection headings. In this case, perhaps an exception could be motivated by the fact that the section title does not explicitly inform the reader that this be the right place to look.

So, @SpikeToronto, would it be sufficient from your point of view just to add the following as a footnote?

So, e.g., D. B. Redford[reference] and A. F. Rainey[reference]; this is discussed in the section Shasu#Shasu of Yhw.

Regards, JoergenB (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @JoergenB! How about no citation and something along these lines (please forgive the deficient "literary-ness" of the example): Some scholars link the Israelites and Yahweh with the Shasu, while others find this theorised linkage objectionable. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 15:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I very much appreciate the analysis you provided above. It was very useful! — SpikeToronto 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@SpikeToronto: Well, perhaps; but this does introduce a bit of that 'on the one hand... but on the other...' kind of discussion I would prefer to avoid in the lead. If you just want to ensure that the reader understands that this is contested, couldn't we just write A few (but far from all) scholars link the Israelites and Yahweh with the Shasu? JoergenB (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoergenB: Perfect! — SpikeToronto 03:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done JoergenB (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)